Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 8 votes

911 Pentagon Video Footage


  • Please log in to reply
3292 replies to this topic

#2461    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 October 2012 - 04:40 PM

View PostMID, on 14 October 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

As I said, depending on whether you could actually interpret the FDR data or not (I can), it was a right turn, not a left.

BR, has been playing in the left field for so long that his left field mindset has now interpreted right turns as left turns.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2462    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 14 October 2012 - 05:32 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 14 October 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

BR, has been playing in the left field for so long that his left field mindset has now interpreted right turns as left turns.


Copy that, Sky, and I think you might have something there! :tu: :tsu: :yes:


#2463    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:18 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

What, exactly, do academic debates have to do with scientific journals?  That is not their purpose.  Did this journal state that they were going to be hosting a debate?

After publication of a paper there is a window for discussion and closure papers – these are a type of formal discussion/debate surrounding the initial paper.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

It doesn't really make much sense to me insinuate that there is some unfairness on the part of mainstream journals when said journals have no obligation to anyone; they certainly are not under the obligation to allow longer articles beyond their general word limit guidelines.  Do you have any record of a journal refusing to accept a submission because of the political sensitivity, or even mentioning it at all?

Exactly – which is why it is biased that Bazant was allowed to break the word limit guideline when Gourley was not.  Especially after JEM had promised Gourley that Bazant would be required to adhere to the guideline but then published his extended article anyway.  And even more unfair that Bazant was allowed to criticise Gourley for his limited paper when there was nothing Gourley could do about that due to the word limit being upheld in his case.

To your question - it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

And as I think boony said, this whole 'unfairness' point in the context of science is just plain whiny.  Nothing is preventing them from continuing their work and research. I'm sorry that they have to do just as much work and convincing as every other scientist and professional on the planet to get their ideas published.

The truth movement must do more work and convincing than other professionals who already have the media and political establishment on their side.

I agree that the truth movement has the opportunity to continue their work and are doing so – that is my main point since booNy challenged that they were not in mainstream avenues, rather than this side-point of ‘fairness’ you have jumped on.  In fact, there is another article to be published in JEM this month, by yet another physicist pointing out error of the official theory: -

http://911blogger.co...t=450&width=850

It will be interesting to hear how Dr. Grabbe is treated.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Maybe he has the political and media establishment on his side because he is correct?  Why do you act like this is not a possibility?  This is the problem with almost every single argument or evidence point we've gone over in the last few months; there is always, in my and many others' view, at the very least an alternative explanation to every point you bring up, many of them I'd even say are more accurately called a 'more probable' explanation (*cough* 'media had foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse' *cough*).  Yes, you can occasionally use circumstantial evidence alone successfully in court, but that tactic is devastated by simply pointing out that the circumstantial evidence also supports a different explanation or multiple scenarios.  I know I've said this before, this is what makes you so easy to dispute, it is the overall vulnerable spot in your overall argument, your certainty is out of proportion from the evidential support.  Maybe ultimately we will find out you are correct, but that's going to require a lot more data, there's gobs of it missing at critical places in your argument.  But you act like that missing data is no hindrance at all, and forge on feeling justified referring to people as criminals and insinuating that people, that may be 100% innocent, are implicated in some way in the mass murder of thousands.

Because the media and political establishment very apparently held a pre-conceived conclusion from day one.

It is always possible to fit another answer to the evidence.  As I said elsewhere... when the suspect with a grudge against the victim was witnessed at the scene, found in possession of the murder weapon and with the victim’s blood on his shirt... that was due to a chance meeting, planting of the weapon and cross-contamination... right?  Through such explanations people claim that no thorough investigation is needed.

But I actually like your paragraph above, because I could throw it all right back at you – that official story with it’s information gaps.  And I say to you again:  my argument supports a thorough investigation, what matter if my certainty were unfounded?  Your argument props up a war, what are the stakes if you are wrong?  I really think it's official story adherents that needs to keep their confidence in check, not I.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

I'm kind of surprised you respect that because I see almost none of it from you:  "I'm not sure".  And you have mischaracterized me, I've already grasped and stated it, it's amazing that it even needs to be said again:  they are not being biased if their standards are not met.

The paper would not have been published if the journal standards were not met.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Nice try, 'editorial' and 'political' need to be divided by more than a slash.  Of course, it's a an editorial decision:  they didn't 'limit' Gourley, they gave him the same amount of words they give most of their submissions, they treated him fairly.  They gave Bazant more words for reasons unknown, possibly because of political sensitivity, maybe because he's a luminary, maybe because he's just plain correct, maybe because they had extra space that month; only one of those is what I'd call 'biased'.  Especially since this isn't a debate, no one was crowned the winner.

I've been meaning to rip into you about pretty much flat out misleading me that Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed as that term is used in reference to normal papers, it appears that this was an editorial review which is different, but it's Friday we'll let it go.  I will say that I have felt a little guilty that I've gotten too busy to respond to many of the posts you've made on TT, but when I have to unpack your statements and see if, surprise, surprise, I think you are significantly overstating them, I don't feel so bad as you're essentially making me check out nearly everything you say.

None of those points you mention make it anymore ‘fair’ on Gourley’s argument.

I’m sorry if you feel I misled you about the review process, though it made no difference to the point - that the paper met standards of the journal - and I’m still not convinced myself that Gourley’s paper received no peer-review – it doesn’t seem right that a technical paper can be published with no such review.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Do you realize how much credibility JEM would gain by standing against these pro-war elements, providing the evidence of the attacks, and showing that their commitment is to what they say it is:  science?  I know you don't realize the fame and fortune, of not just a celebrity but a historical nature, awaiting anyone that could really demonstrate your case with a lot of good evidence.

The consequences are a potential civil war and political overhaul the likes of which have not been seen in our lifetime – you don’t initiate that lightly on the chance of gaining some ‘credibility’ or ‘fame and fortune’ which might not even be recognised until after we’re all gone.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Again, I really haven't seen much expertise demonstrated that I should give your opinion of scientific papers that much merit.  And we went over this months ago:  there ain't no 'proving' in science.

You cut the supportive expert opinion I provided from Quintiere out of my post and then isolate and attack the point as my opinion?  That’s kind of.. wrong.  Not to mention that my argument is based on that of an attorney and demonstrated to be more widely backed by thousands of architects, engineers and scientists.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

What a poor argument.  Can you show me all the experts who have evaluated alchemy and disagree with it?

I’ll take that as a “no”; you cannot provide numbers of professionals who have definitely evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me, to rival the truth movement professional membership.  If you want to use alchemy as a comparison, we would first need a large group of professionals who still agree with the practice.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2464    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,995 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 15 October 2012 - 01:57 PM

MID

You can get us a NASA T-38?  Awesome! :tu:

I did get to fly a T-38 simulator years ago, attending my brother-in-law's graduation in Columbus MS.  Awesome airplane.

Betcha ol' Hani could fly it like an ace, eh?  Lookin' for those virgins and stuff, full of religious zeal, eh? :tsu:


#2465    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 15 October 2012 - 02:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 October 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

MID

You can get us a NASA T-38?  Awesome! :tu:

I did get to fly a T-38 simulator years ago, attending my brother-in-law's graduation in Columbus MS.  Awesome airplane.

Betcha ol' Hani could fly it like an ace, eh?  Lookin' for those virgins and stuff, full of religious zeal, eh? :tsu:

The fact of the matter is, he flew a B-757 into the Pentagon.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2466    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 15 October 2012 - 03:34 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 October 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

You cut the supportive expert opinion I provided from Quintiere out of my post and then isolate and attack the point as my opinion?  That’s kind of.. wrong.  Not to mention that my argument is based on that of an attorney and demonstrated to be more widely backed by thousands of architects, engineers and scientists.

I don't think so.

Quote

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted Image


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002


Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report
,
remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/




KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2467    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 15 October 2012 - 10:36 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 October 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

The fact of the matter is, he flew a B-757 into the Pentagon.


Yep, he did, but BR couldn't understand that any more than he could understand piloting any aircraft or the  idiocy of flying a jet aircraft into the Pentagon, or the WTC towers.


#2468    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,711 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 15 October 2012 - 11:28 PM

Heres all thats left of the Tower,Its in the Newseum In D.C.

Attached Files


This is a Work in Progress!

#2469    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 October 2012 - 03:34 AM

View PostQ24, on 15 October 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

The truth movement must do more work and convincing than other professionals who already have the media and political establishment on their side.

I agree that the truth movement has the opportunity to continue their work and are doing so – that is my main point since booNy challenged that they were not in mainstream avenues, rather than this side-point of ‘fairness’ you have jumped on.  In fact, there is another article to be published in JEM this month, by yet another physicist pointing out error of the official theory: -

http://911blogger.co...t=450&width=850

It will be interesting to hear how Dr. Grabbe is treated.

After browsing through just the first few pages, I don't anticipate that he will be treated well, and deservedly so.  Not only should his editor be fired, the initial facts that he has presented are nothing short of blatant error.  I don't expect the rest to be much better, but I'll continue to read either tonight or tomorrow.

So far, this is just more of the same kind of garbage we've all come to expect from the truth movement.


#2470    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:52 AM

The beginning of his book is utter garbage.  If you get your hands on the scientific paper, I'd love to read it.


#2471    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,780 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:49 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

If you get your hands on the scientific paper, I'd love to read it.
Here's the draft version from Grabbe's website:
http://www.sealane.o.../Bazantrpy.html

and the first page as published:
http://ascelibrary.o...rnalCode=jenmdt

Usual stuff, lots of claims, nothing to back them up.  Where on earth does he get the "four times gravity" stuff - he doesn't give a reference?  Top of the building being accelerated down by enormous rockets?

Hoffman's ridiculous energy claims have been long demolished.

Edited by flyingswan, 16 October 2012 - 10:03 AM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#2472    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 October 2012 - 11:58 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 16 October 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Here's the draft version from Grabbe's website:
http://www.sealane.o.../Bazantrpy.html

and the first page as published:
http://ascelibrary.o...rnalCode=jenmdt

Usual stuff, lots of claims, nothing to back them up.  Where on earth does he get the "four times gravity" stuff - he doesn't give a reference?  Top of the building being accelerated down by enormous rockets?

Hoffman's ridiculous energy claims have been long demolished.

Thanks Swanny, I'll try to get to reading this today.  After reading the opening of his book last night I'm in shock that he could get anything published at all to be honest.


#2473    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,995 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:49 PM

View PostMID, on 15 October 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Yep, he did, but BR couldn't understand that any more than he could understand piloting any aircraft or the  idiocy of flying a jet aircraft into the Pentagon, or the WTC towers.

Neither you nor Sky can PROVE that a 757 struck the Pentagon, that it was AA77, OR that it was piloted by HH.

You can make that claim, repeat it ad nauseam, provide cool links and specious pictures, but you cannot PROVE it.

There is too much evidence that contradicts the story, from the Citgo witnesses to the doctored FDR, to the absurdity of a lousy pilot flying like God, to specious cell phone calls, and on and on.

Too many flies in the ointment for your story to be true MID. :no:


#2474    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:00 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 October 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Neither you nor Sky can PROVE that a 757 struck the Pentagon, that it was AA77, OR that it was piloted by HH.

You can make that claim, repeat it ad nauseam, provide cool links and specious pictures, but you cannot PROVE it.

There is too much evidence that contradicts the story, from the Citgo witnesses to the doctored FDR, to the absurdity of a lousy pilot flying like God, to specious cell phone calls, and on and on.

Too many flies in the ointment for your story to be true MID. :no:

We have more than enough pieces of the puzzle put together to reasonably conclude that an aircraft impacted the Pentagon, that this aircraft was in fact AA 77, and that it was piloted by HH.

But of course you are free to continue claiming that you see a duck where there is none.

Posted Image


Enjoy your ignorance.  I hear it is very blissful.


#2475    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:05 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 October 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Neither you nor Sky can PROVE that a 757 struck the Pentagon, that it was AA77, OR that it was piloted by HH.[/

But, you have been saying that the aircraft passed north of the gas stations and now look what you are posting. Furthermore, you have failed to provide evidence that there was no B-757 involved, which there isn't considering there was wreckage of a B-757 spread inside and outside the Pentagon, which  proves beyond any doubt the aircraft was a B-757, not a P700 anti-ship missile you threw in. What is the purpose of an anti-shop missile anyway? Did you consider the Pentagon as an ocean-going ship?

Quote

You can make that claim, repeat it ad nauseam, provide cool links and specious pictures, but you cannot PROVE it.

Already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that American 77, which was a B-757, crashed into the Pentagon. Now, as a challenge, where is your evidence that refutes what I have just said. Either post your evidence, or you have no case. :no:

Quote

There is too much evidence that contradicts the story, from the Citgo witnesses to the doctored FDR,...

Now wait a minute!! You have been saying that no B-757 was involved and now look what you are saying. You said that the aircraft passed north of the gas station and a doctored FDR was taken from that aircraft. You get so  wrapped up in your own distortion routine, that you are trippin' over yourself again.

Quote

...to the absurdity of a lousy pilot flying like God,

How amusing when I performed a similar maneuver as a low-time student pilot.

Quote

...to specious cell phone calls, and on and on.

How amusing when I have used a cell phone in flight, and look what you posted!! BTW, only two phone calls were made and those were made below 5000 feet, while on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of phone calls were made from air phones, but you knew that and you knew that cell phones were made because I made available to you, the cell phone records made from that aircraft.  

Here are more examples.

Quote

Unsafe At Any Airspeed?

Cellphones and other electronics are more of a risk than you think

Is it safe to use cellphones on airplanes? The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) thinks it may be. In December 2004, the agency began soliciting comments on proposed regulations that would allow airline passengers to use cellphones and other electronic devices.

Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins. What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.

http://spectrum.ieee...at-any-airspeed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilot Speaks to Wife on Cell Phone during Flight

The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan.

The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators.

http://www.aircrafto...01208X06269.asp


Edited by skyeagle409, 16 October 2012 - 04:10 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users